I had just finished reading Emma by Jane Austen when I took a fancy to watching a screen version to see what was made of it, and chose to watch the TV version starring Kate Beckinsale. I was surprised to see it getting an overall rating on IMDB of 7.1Don't get me wrong: it isn't at all bad and for its kind quite good, but after reading Austen's subtle novel and having fresh in mind the nuances with which she conveys all the - essentially trivial - goings-on in Highbury, I do feel it somewhat misses its target. Not a lot, but enough to challenge that 7.1 overall rating.Naturally, a screen or TV adaption of a novel is in many ways restricted, and I have borne that in mind. But there are one or two other details which I feel don't do the novel justice. For example, Emma is undoubtedly a rich woman - her 1816 fortune of £30,000 translates into 2018's more than £2.6 million, and she and her father can afford to live a life of ease.But their circumstances as portrayed in the TV film do over-egg the pudding to an alarming degree. They - and George Knightley - were most certainly not titled. They were simply well-off landed gentry able to live off the rents they received for their land. So the super grand homes they are shown to live in - and the number of uniformed flunkeys the Woodhouses are shown to employ - are, to be blunt, ludicrous. This is TV early-19th century life.The social divergences and disposable income in the early 19th century were certainly far, far wider than they are today (at least here in Britain - I can't speak for the US), but the Woodhouses, Knightley and the Weston's were fundamentally well-off middle-class folk. Yes, they had no financial worries, although fate and fortune could, and very often did, pitch such families down the social scale quite fast as they had no way of insuring themselves.In those days, a candle falling over and starting a fire which could burn their houses to the ground was a perpetual fear for them and did easily bankrupt many a well-to-do family. (A good example is how TV portrays the ball at the Crown: despite the availability of staff, in the novel it was very much a small-scale DIY affair, more a fun gathering than the full-blown event shown.)The TV film portrays them otherwise. As shown in the film they would be living as minor aristocracy. In this regard Knightley's grand pile is especially ludicrous. Austen herself and her family, however impeccably middle-class, were certainly not well-off and were forever teetering on the brink of penury, all to often relying on the goodwill of family. Hence the then sheer necessity of a young woman 'marrying well'. These might be minor points, of course, and after all it is fiction. But as in this regard it does not reflect on Jane Austen's world, other infelicities also creep in.My second reservation is that the TV film falls short of conveying the subtleties of the different situations the characters find themselves in. Again to be blunt it is all just a tad too cut and dried.Screenwriter Andrew Davies, the go-to chap for this kind of stuff, otherwise does reasonably well: though at times a little broad-brush, he does Austen's characters s0me justice, although his script does rather take too little account of Austen's sharp with and satirical eye.The plot of Austen's novel is also far to syncopated in this adaptation, with the various developments simply not being sufficiently established to make much sense. Overall, I was disappointed and would recommend anyone so inclined to head for the far more substantial novel. But that said, as a piece of costume drama this version can still hold its head high for those who go a bundle for this kind of thing.

The makers of the ITV and A&E TV film of Jane Austen's "Emma" may have had fits in 1996. An independent group was making a film for the silver screen about the same time (to be distributed by Miramax), and it was ahead of ITV's film in production and its release. This has happened a few times in film history when different groups plan on and actually film the same novel or story for a movie. Both films had new rising stars as their leads. Gwyneth Paltrow in the theater film and Kate Beckinsale in this ITV/A&E film. The only other widely known cast member here is Prunella Scales as Miss Bates. Scales will be remembered always for her Sybil in "Fawlty Towers." But the theater film had more recognizable cast members – including Jeremy Northam as Mr. Knightly and Ewan McGregor as Frank Church.Both films won awards – this one received two Emmys, and the theater film received on Oscar and one more nomination. The critics seem divided on these two films, mostly over the lead role. Those who prefer the girlish, romantic Emma gave the nod to Beckinsale in this TV film. Those who prefer the more lofty, class conscious Emma gave the nod to Paltrow. Each actress does a very good job in her respective role for the script she had. And, that's where I think the theater film screenplay was truer to the character as Austen portrayed her. The ITV script is more serious and somewhat dark. The theater film has its serious moments but they don't suppress the lightness and humor. So, Paltrow's character seems to more closely embody the Emma we read on the pages of the novel. That will likely remain a matter of taste between viewers of two camps, but an important aspect to consider is the rest of the cast and the screenplays. For those, this TV film falls behind the theater movie. The two-hour theater movie was able to better cover the main scenarios of the novel. This TV film is more serious and more of a drama, where I think Austen wanted the humor to be more apparent. And the casting was far better in the theater film. Mark Strong is a fine actor, but his Mr. Knightley was not the gentle soul and good-natured teacher and sparring partner to Emma. His was far more serious, bold and nearly belligerent in his protestations. The rest of the cast are a mix. Scales was fine as Miss Bates, but she couldn't equal Sophie Thompson's role in the theater movie. Some of the other characters seemed quite weak in this rendition. Anyone who enjoys Jane Austen should enjoy this film. But if one has a choice, the best and most entertaining film of "Emma" is the 1996 theater movie that stars Gwyneth Paltrow.

i really loved this version of Emma the best. Kate beckinsale was awesome as Emma and mark strong was very good as knightly. the only complaint that i had was on Mr. woodhouse..i can't believe that a man could whine so much or be so selfish with his daughter's life..she was a smart girl in the end though. as always, i love the places in which these Jane Austin movies were shot. the settings are so spectular. it makes me want to visit england so much 9as well as Ireland and Scotland) i think the actors chosen for this movie were a good choice as well and all the other story lines interwhined with Emma's most excellently! i am glad that i got to see this one as well.

The script is nice.Though the casting is absolutely non-watchable.No style. the costumes do not look like some from the High Highbury society. Comparing Gwyneth Paltrow with Kate Beckinsale I can only say that Ms. Beckinsale speaks British English better than Ms. Paltrow, though in Ms. Paltrow's acting lies the very nature of Emma Woodhouse. Mr. Northam undoubtedly is the best Mr. Knightley of all versions, he is romantic and not at all sharp-looking and unfeeling like Mr. Knightley in the TV-version. P.S.The spectator cannot see at all Mr. Elton-Ms. Smith relationship's development as it was in the motion version, so one cannot understand where was all Emma's trying of make a Elton-Smith match (besides of the portrait).